| Message |
I can't help but to stress that enough. I've lived there before, and I swear, that city DEPENDS on traffic citations. The commish there actually told me, yes ME, that even with as many tickets that their city PD writes, the crime rate hasn't dropped. HUH! What does traffic citations have to do with crime rates?!?! DOH! And Lodi ... that's another story. The thing with Lodi is, "You can't be a teenager in Lodi and drive without being cited at least once." In your case, it sounds like the Stockton courts alright -- it's not just the traffic court, believe me. They gave you the good ol' fashioned runaround. The worst thing about courts like that is, you can't really complain to anyone, with the exception of making a complaint to the BAR association. Anyway, I could rant all day about traffic enforcement in Stockton ... but won't. Okay, back to your case. It sounds like you did everything you should have, but I don't see any mention of paying fees for making copies per the Discovery Request or a SASE. At this time, I'm just curious as to what the judge responded if he did. BTW, AFAIK, there exists one extension per person involved for the TBD. On a side note though, the more I read the letter, the more I see it as "innocent by technicality". That's not what a judge wants to see on a TBD. Not that "hindsight is 20/20", I would have mentioned briefly about the lack of Discovery Request reply and then moved onto the facts of the case. Then in the dismissal request, I would have asked for the dismissal based on "rights to due process" AND "not violating" the alleged code. Knowing the way the courts in Stockton are run, he was anal enough to "overlook" the Constitutional and Penal violations and jump right into the so-called "facts". In the actual courtroom, I would have, again, asked for a dismissal based on "Constitutional rights to due process" because of a no-show of an involved complainant. Nothing more.
|
 |
